KUSH SHARMA
To some, the existence of a God will appear quixotic. To others, it is significantly meaningful in their lives. Various speculations regarding the existence of a God have surfaced since a time as early as 2600 years ago. The elemental thought of a God emerged around the sixth century BCE. The question "Does a God Exist?" is one that has puzzled many and it has received many attempted answers. A God is defined as the creator of the universe and a superhuman; a ruler of the universe having substantial power over it; a divine being. In a world of over 4000 recognised religions (a large quantity being atheistic), the concept of a God has become more prominently questioned than ever before. As our modern world evolves in both the scientific and cosmological fields, the idea of a God grows, according to many, increasingly unlikely. In this essay, the views of religion, cosmology, history and philosophy will be explored. I will discuss how a God’s traditional characteristics are conflicting with our modern world and why, in my opinion, one’s existence is unlikely.
Monotheistic and polytheistic religions alike share that fundamental idea of (a) God(s) at their roots. The oldest religion of all, Hinduism, has, according to some estimates, several million deities, while of course monotheistic religions such as Christianity believe in just one God. Prayers, traditions and rituals are conducted in a manner of service to a follower's trusted God/s. The Western monotheistic religion Christianity is one that teaches the lessons and morals of Jesus Christ, the son of God. It is the world’s largest religion with a population of 2.5 billion. To the billions of members of theistic religions, God does exist. God exists within themselves; he serves as a beacon of hope to all. In times of trouble or fear, people can rely on God for reassurance and safety. Belief in God has been strengthened by the arbitrary occurrences of natural phenomena. One such example would be stigmata. Stigmata is the appearance of bodily scars similar to the crucifixion wounds of Jesus Christ. These injuries were said to generally appear on the feet and hands. However, something being based on religion does not mean we should believe in it entirely. Stigmata are considered improbable as injuries do not spontaneously appear on the body; items such as a knife can always be identified as a cause.
God (in Christianity) is described as being omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. This is known as the Incompatible Triad.
However, the Incompatible Triad is, by name and nature, questionable and is often challenged. Omnipotent means God is all powerful and has unlimited control. A counterargument could be made by citing natural evil: evil caused by the morally ‘bad’ actions of a human. One can argue that if God is purportedly all powerful, how can heinous actions and crimes still occur in our world? 150 000 people die every day globally; some deaths are natural, yet some are deliberate. Dangerous crimes are committed that often result in the loss of life. God can, I believe, therefore not be omnipotent as He fails to keep our world a peaceful planet. If God is omnipotent and yet allows these events, then this must mean He is unwilling to prevent the natural evil of the world. This leads on to the next description of God in Christianity: benevolence. Benevolence essentially means kindness; God is kind and undoubtedly cares for all. Yet terrors and tragedies take place nonetheless, despite God’s believed kindness. The fact that He allows these to happen can be interpreted as a contradiction of God’s benevolence - horrific wars, diseases and crimes happen on a global scale. That being said, many will consider this a ‘part of God’s Plan’ as pain has sometimes proven to be beneficial. For example, the ignition of a war can cause millions of deaths later on. The consequent tragedy and severe suffering can make those in power more cautious and aware in future. This may prevent future devastating conflict. Nevertheless, history has repeated itself and evil seems to increase regardless of casualties. This further supports the notion God is not benevolent; this notion of God's Plan doesn't seem to stack up. Finally, God is described as omniscient, meaning all-knowing. A vital moral issue with this description relates to free will. If God has seen all events from the past, present and future, then how can one act freely when one's actions have already been written? One cannot argue one is free when one has been limited in one's choices by God’s supposed omniscience.
Epicurus, a highly renowned Greek philosopher in 300 B.C, tackled the question of God’s existence. He stated the following:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing?
Then He is malevolent.
Is He both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is He neither able nor willing?
Then why call Him God?" - Epicurus
Epicurus’ argument supports my suggestion that the descriptions of God are challenged by the evil events of the world which seem to oppose the Christian view of God. The three words of such importance in Christianity can, it seems, easily be contradicted with logic due to natural evil and a lack of free will. This can be interpreted as evidence of the non-existence of a God.
From a cosmological point of view, the belief in a God also seems illogical. Faith in a God is purely hypothetical as there can be no documented evidence, only belief. Theistic religions such as Christianity and Hinduism delve into the concept of creationism, the idea that God created our universe, Earth and life. This is purely conditional and is based on the assumption that a God exists, without any concrete evidence or logic. Scientists, however, are interested in evidence. Theories of the origins of our universe are nascent but some are respected. A widely accepted theory in the cosmological community is the Big Bang.
The Big Bang is a scientific theory that states that, at the beginning of the universe, a singular dense point reached a state of infinite density. This resulted in its explosion and it engendered the expansion of our universe. It first travelled at unquantifiable speeds and then at a more measurable rate, with the universe still expanding at an estimated rate of 70km per second per megaparsec to this day (a megaparsec is equivalent to 3.26 million lightyears*). The Big Bang is currently considered the scientific theory that best explains the origins of our universe. Whilst the Big Bang theory has not been proven, its hypothesis has been strengthened by two major breakthroughs within the last century. These two discoveries are: the determination of the relationship between a galaxy’s distance from Earth and its speed in the 1920s, and the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in the 1960s. Groundbreaking revolutions such as these have increased the reliability of evidence for, and therefore the probability of, the Big Bang. Philosophers have stated that these scientific explanations are still in harmony with the concept of God, since it has been said that God may have caused the Big Bang, but many will disagree as this theory is quite different from the original descriptions of Genesis. In fact, as early as the 16th century, scholars such as Nicolaus Copernicus were deemed heretical by the Roman Catholic church for their foundation of the field of astronomy, and their discoveries which were felt to disagree with the word of the Bible.
When theories such as the Big Bang are deemed likely by cosmologists collectively, how can one argue that the idea of a God is more convincing?
Philosophy is teeming with hundreds of philosophers, many of whom have pondered the question of a God’s existence. The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche was very famous for his view on God. He proposed God is ‘dead’. This is often interpreted literally but it has a metaphorical outline. By saying God is dead, he is not simply stating that a God has died; it can be thought that he is saying that the idea of a God is dead due to an increasingly atheist population (Nietzsche was an atheist), and the advancement in the scientific fields. This interpretation views Nietzsche as stating that we humans made up a God, and we killed the idea of one with our scientifically evolving understanding of the universe, its origins and how we humans came to be.
Lucretius was a Roman poet and philosopher who was a passionate atheist. He believed that even if the gods created our world, the everyday workings in our world (such as the transition from day to night, as well as deaths and births) happen naturally, i.e without interference from a God. Lucretius believed the Gods have no part to play in the natural processes and occurrences in our world. He was essentially arguing that the gods no longer play a part in many natural processes they are credited for initiating.
A contrasting view would be that of Aristotle. Aristotle was a Greek philosopher who made God responsible for all the change in the world. He claimed that God fills everything with order as well as purpose, both of which can point to a God’s existence. However, he criticised traditional religion, claiming that it is false.
One philosopher that argued for the existence of God with a certain validity was Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas devised five key logical arguments as to why a God must exist (known as ‘The Five Ways’) and this work became prominent, with many considering it to present a relatively convincing argument.
The first proof Aquinas theorised was the argument of motion. As corroborated by Newton’s First Law of Motion, a stationary object will not move unless acted upon by a force exerted. As all forces must be exerted by a moving object, the argument goes that the chain of motions must have begun with one primal mover, and this mover was argued to be God.
The second of the Five Ways was similar, but related to causation. The rationale was that everything in the world has a cause (linking to Aristotle’s view) and an infinite series of causes is not possible. Therefore, there must have been a first cause for all changes that occur: God.
The third theory is more advanced. A possible being is defined as one that can exist but does not have to exist, while necessary beings are ones that have to exist. If a being is capable of not existing, there must have been a time when it in fact did not exist, provided time is infinite. If all beings are possible, there must have been a stage in time when nothing existed. Yet, from nothing we have the universe and we assume it is impossible for something to be created from nothing. This is a contradiction, and so there must be at least one necessary being, as everything in existence depends, for this existence, on another necessary being, and the ultimate necessary being is God.
The penultimate argument is related to perfection. All things are imperfect; nothing is ever perfect. Thus, there must be one perfect being that makes all other things in the universe imperfect. This perfect being is God.
The final of the Five Ways states the following: everything has its own natural end (as theorised by Aristotle) and natural bodies lack intelligence, disabling them from steering themselves toward that natural end. There must be an intelligent being which guides them. This intelligent being is God.
This argument has caused many conjectures in favour of a God’s existence. However, on more detailed analysis an overt logical error arose in Aquinas’ thinking. This is that if everything in the world has a cause, and God is the ultimate cause for immutable change, then surely God had a cause. How can one state everything has a cause to support God’s existence and not define whether God has a cause? By this thinking, God does have a cause but this has never been conceptualised. God is meant to be the ultimate being; how can there be a cause for God?
Historically, many monarchs have had utmost faith in God, particularly as defined by Christianity. A recurrent religious belief among past Kings of England caused them to have full confidence that they would be suited to the royal role. The ‘Divine Right of Kings’ was a belief from as early as the 1400s. It was often used by kings as immunity to any liability they were allocated; they believed they were chosen by God to rule.
One example of this belief was during the War of the Roses: both Henry VII and Richard III claimed they were chosen by God to rule England. This was a mere claim and not many believed them as they both argued the same premise, and their claims were mutually exclusive. However, a famous example of a king strongly believing in the ‘Divine Right of Kings’ was King Charles I, during the English Civil War epoch. Charles strongly believed he had been selected by God as king and, at the time, many agreed with this. However, this became moot after the events of the civil war unravelled. Charles, alongside the rest of the Cavaliers (supporters of the King), fought against the Roundheads (Parliamentarians). Charles eventually lost this war and was executed. The question was therefore prompted: was King Charles chosen by God just to cause conflict and be beheaded nearly 16 years later? In addition, the 200 000 lives lost (3.6% of the population at that time) during the war were also caused by “Charles being chosen by God to rule.” Did God intend to cause the deaths of 200 000 English civilians and soldiers? This relates to God being benevolent and omnipotent: if God were these things then surely the civil war never would have happened. Therefore, there can be no God as one cannot surely state that God intentionally appointed Charles as King; if He truly is omniscient, He would have already seen the eventual outcome and could have prevented it.
In conclusion, this essay has shown how God's existence is unlikely. Christianity’s description of God is easily questionable due to natural evil and conflict. Philosophers have theorised about a deity but a valid explanation is yet to surface (Aquinas’ point was somewhat valid, but a logical error arose, as previously discussed). Historically, significant figures such as Charles I have had faith in God and have met gruesome ends, further challenging God’s omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence. Scientists have no proof or disproof for a God's existence, yet their theories are increasing in plausibility.
In future decades, I predict that atheistic religions and agnosticism will soar as more and more will be convinced that the idea of a God is improbable as our world will grow in science, cosmology and logic.
I therefore think the idea of a God’s existence is unlikely.
*Editor's note: The expanding universe is described in this way because the speed of objects away from Earth is greater further from the Earth (Hubble's Law), so it is expressed relative to distance; we mustn't fall into, of course, the common misconception about light years. A light year is a measure of distance, not time.
Bibliography
University of Western Australia (2014). Evidence for the Big Bang. [online] Available at: https://www.uwa.edu.au/study/-/media/Faculties/Science/Docs/Evidence-for-the-Big-Bang.pdf.
Stefon, M. (2019). The Five Ways | philosophy | Britannica. In: Encyclopædia Britannica. [online] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/the-Five-Ways.
Epicurus. A quote by Epicurus. [online] Goodreads.com. Available at: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8199-is-god-willing-to-prevent-evil-but-not-able-then.
Carr, K. (2017). Lucretius and Epicureanism - Quatr.us Study Guides. [online] Quatr.us Study Guides. Available at: https://quatr.us/philosophy/lucretius-nature-things-epicureanism.htm [Accessed 10 Jan. 2020].
Anthology, 1000-Word P.A.I. (2018). ‘God is dead’: Nietzsche and the Death of God. [online] 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology. Available at: https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/02/13/nietzsche-and-the-death-of-god/